On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 3:17 PM, John Gilmore <g...@toad.com> wrote:
>> I think that the addition of a new property in the activity.info file
>> would be logical here.  Make it an integer indicating the maximum
>> number of supported participants.  "Unshared" activities would report
>> '1', activities like video chat (with technical limitations) or chess
>> (with obvious player limits) might specify 2, and others could specify
>> another cap based on resource requirements and/or a constant to
>> indicate an unbounded number.
> If robust activity sharing is ever going to make it past the Sugar GUI
> barrier, adding sharing properties to a Sugar-specific config file
> will just create an issue that needs cleaning up later.  Wouldn't it
> be better to add a function or argument to the sharing API, that an
> application can use to limit the number of participants sharing the
> application?
> The world and the kids would be better off with e.g. a GNU Chess/
> XBoard that's able to share on any platform, rather than a "Chess
> Activity" that only shares under Sugar.

+1. And if and when sharing is maintained upstream from Sugar, we all
win... until then, we need to keep pounding away at the Sugar bits.

>        John
> http://www.tim-mann.org/xboard.html
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel@lists.laptop.org
> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
Devel mailing list

Reply via email to